I loved the comparison between Arians/Carroll in 2012 and Jauron/Belichick in 2001. Arians gets an award that will be forgotten a few months from now, but Carroll will go down in history among the greats. I'll take that tradeoff.

Those of you who think Arians didn't deserve it at least as much as Carroll didn't follow the story. The guy stepped into an interim role and pulled that tea, together for a playoff season. Carroll deserved it too, but to say ignorant things like "Cancer won it" is pathetic. Arians did an amazing job.

Any other year Carroll probably wins, just like any other year Wilson probably wins OROY. Just how it fell this year, that there were a bunch of amazing jobs done by coaches and players and multiple people deserved to win.

kearly wrote:I loved the comparison between Arians/Carroll in 2012 and Jauron/Belichick in 2001. Arians gets an award that will be forgotten a few months from now, but Carroll will go down in history among the greats. I'll take that tradeoff.

Plus, it makes rooting against the Cardinals more fun.

This I definitely thought of. Carroll is coach of the last three years but the gradual ascent of the team negates him from being coach of the year.

SoCalHawk wrote:Ignorant troll? Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. You need to learn the definition of a troll.

From wikipedia, ''In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So in an internet forum you posted an inflammatory comment with the primary intent of readers to invoke an logically fallacious emotional response and discuss Chuck Pagano's condition as opposed to Bruce Arians' success.

SoCalHawk wrote:Ignorant troll? Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. You need to learn the definition of a troll.

From wikipedia, ''In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So in an internet forum you posted an inflammatory comment with the primary intent of readers to discuss Chuck Pagano's condition as opposed to Bruce Arians' success.

Troll.

What he posted doesn't fit that definition. Quit derailing the thread.

Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???

SoCalHawk wrote:Ignorant troll? Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. You need to learn the definition of a troll.

From wikipedia, ''In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So in an internet forum you posted an inflammatory comment with the primary intent of readers to discuss Chuck Pagano's condition as opposed to Bruce Arians' success.

Troll.

What he posted doesn't fit that definition. Quit derailing the thread.

I am trying to discuss Arians' accomplishments this season and not Chuck Pagano so I don't understand how I derailed conversation. Please enlighten me.

SoCalHawk wrote:Ignorant troll? Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. You need to learn the definition of a troll.

From wikipedia, ''In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So in an internet forum you posted an inflammatory comment with the primary intent of readers to invoke an logically fallacious emotional response and discuss Chuck Pagano's condition as opposed to Bruce Arians' success.

Troll.

Ugh. You are one of those. No point in arguing with your type.

Anyway, to those that are interested in talking football, do you think that if Pagano would have been suspended, or been away for another reason other than cancer, that Arians wins?

SoCalHawk wrote:Ignorant troll? Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. You need to learn the definition of a troll.

From wikipedia, ''In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

So in an internet forum you posted an inflammatory comment with the primary intent of readers to invoke an logically fallacious emotional response and discuss Chuck Pagano's condition as opposed to Bruce Arians' success.

Troll.

Ugh. You are one of those. No point in arguing with your type.

Anyway, to those that are interested in talking football, do you think that if Pagano would have been suspended, or been away for another reason other than cancer, that Arians wins?

What type? The thoughtful, intelligent type? Please attack the post - not the poster.

To answer your latter question - yes - absolutely. First year on the job he is forced to take over a team that was 2-14 the year before and guides them to 11 wins. A 9 win turn around for any coach is coach of the year material - let alone an assistant coach in his first year as a head coach and first year with the team.

If Pagano was suspended for some Bountygate type of deal, yes Arians wins. If Pagano was in a car accident or quit to coach a college team, Arians wins.

If Arians had been HC from the beginning, he wins. No matter what the excuses or flopping folks claim the Colts did, the voters would say he took a team from a 1st pick in the draft to a playoff game and 11 win season.

Pete gets kudos for making a tough call with Wilson and a 4 game upswing. He could have won and not been disputed. But so should Arians. One shouldn't minimize the guy just because another worthy candidate lost.

Sorry all you trying to ram the Arians band wagon on this thread. I am sorry I cant get on it. Yes the media has enhanced his roll and the Cancer angle has had an effect. To say it hasent says you dont think for your self and only follow what the main stream media spoon feeds you.

No I am not a troll I just dont believe he was the coach of the year. He did not coach all the games. He had close to the easiest schedule in the league. He had the suppossed greatest QB ever to come out of college.

Also too many people are putting stock in the 2 and 14 season last year. That was not the team. That was the suck for luck team that purposly used a QB that is not even 5th string in college and did some bizarre things to ensure they losts games.

PC has to be considered in the whole picture. Not just wins and losses but his building of the team. Yes I said HIS building of the team. JS is great but he is only part of the team not the guy who built the team. Add that the decisions to start RW and RW as rookies and the schedule he had to deal with there is NO way Arians did for his team what PC did for the Hawks.

Shit I hate the national media and thier politicaly correct, socialist and heart felt story line agendas.

Everyone putting the cancer sympathy tag on Arians misfired. Pagano soaked up that crowd. And besides, these awards are voted on by the media. They should rename these awards "best rookie story of the year or best coaching story of the year." Not a ton of difference between these awards and winning an ESPY.

kearly wrote:Everyone putting the cancer sympathy tag on Arians misfired. Pagano soaked up that crowd. And besides, these awards are voted on by the media. They should rename these awards "best rookie story of the year or best coaching story of the year." Not a ton of difference between these awards and winning an ESPY.

kearly wrote:Everyone putting the cancer sympathy tag on Arians misfired. Pagano soaked up that crowd. And besides, these awards are voted on by the media. They should rename these awards "best rookie story of the year or best coaching story of the year." Not a ton of difference between these awards and winning an ESPY.

kearly wrote:Everyone putting the cancer sympathy tag on Arians misfired. Pagano soaked up that crowd. And besides, these awards are voted on by the media. They should rename these awards "best rookie story of the year or best coaching story of the year." Not a ton of difference between these awards and winning an ESPY.

If it was best story, Wilson would have won.

Stop trolling please

how does wilson not have the best story? being a short 3rd rounder projected to be a career back up. RG3 had a overall better year than Wilson, Wilson's final games were much better though.But its Rookie of the year, not Rookie of the post-season.

Axx wrote:how does wilson not have the best story? being a short 3rd rounder projected to be a career back up. RG3 had a overall better year than Wilson, Wilson's final games were much better though.But its Rookie of the year, not Rookie of the post-season.

Funny how you continue to try to find anything remotely negative about Wilson, Mr. Troll. R U a closet 'Flynnatic?' How 'bout getting back on topic.

rainger wrote:Also too many people are putting stock in the 2 and 14 season last year. That was not the team. That was the suck for luck team that purposly used a QB that is not even 5th string in college and did some bizarre things to ensure they losts games.

Could you explain to me please how the coaching staff, executives and half the players on the team agreed to tanking games considering they would be losing their jobs at the end of the season?

If they had been convinced by the owner to do such things with promises of jobs the next year, don't you think they would have went to the media after being let go?

The only way that can even make remote sense is that you might believe that Manning went to the owner before anyone on the staff and told him that he was going to need surgery and the owner convinced him to not tell anyone else until after the draft happened in April so he could have the surgery in late May.

As far as going with Painter, he was on the roster for two years prior to the Manning injury, so he should have been able to run the very complicated offense. There was no way they could bring in someone who didn't know that ridiculously complicated system and be able to succeed.